Destoying the Group Barrier

[Fargull]

Destroying the Group Barrier

Right now, the common mechanism in place is the group, team or party.  I do not know whether this was founded on the tolkenesque fellowship, but much can be laid at the feet of Tolken when the concept of the fantasy setting is presented.  My proposal is to allow for co-operative play outside of the group to provide benefits.  The overriding question is why does the industry force limits on interaction in a game premised on unlimited interaction.

Overall, I think it breaks down the idea of Massive Multiplayer into a co-op mode in a community sandbox.  Most MMORPG’s apply some level of benefit and penalty to grouping.  One is the construction of a centralistic design in class abilities common to the Diku style, which has a base premise of the holy trinity; tank, mage, and healer.  Another conception is that any rewards for the effort of this group should be split evenly among the members.  While this does not initially seem as a bad note, the problem arises because the closed nature of the group and the carrot of the reward provide incentive to isolate the group members to both known and trusted individuals.  I would put forth that the next step is to break the group, but provide the same rewards.

One benefit of the group was a graphical stat box so that the healer could know what was going on, or to provide a quick reference if suddenly a team member was disconnected or crashed.  These are very good points, but with the recent upgrades in both processor, ram, and engine performance, the ability to provide graphical data on the character model to reflect damage state would allow for less reliance on the stat bar.  Another option for the healer class would be a pre-spell that provided that character with the health bars of those character’s near the healer.  City of Heroes provides great feedback by the use of both the stars around the head, the hold animations, or the drunken woosey walk from being stunned.  The disconnect issue could be handled in the same way, such as Dark Age of Camelot’s ghosting of the character that has become disconnected.

Secondary, but no less important portion of the group is the ability to communicate easily.  The ability to create a channel on the fly, such as the alliance channels with in Dark Age.  However, one negative effect of having channels outside the common ones, is that it limits community by creating isolation.  Of course, team speak and such provide channels currently outside of games that function toward this isolation.  Taking it a step further and offer team channel ability, but tied in game and creating an emote of Charlie Brown speak so that other character’s that might be participating in the area could ask to join the channel.  Limits are bad in my book.

Why bust up the team?  Aside from the issues above, one of the main reasons for the group currently is found in how the ‘reward’ is given.  However, much of this is based on a simple economic rule of how fast money enters the system, or how often a foozle of coolness if found.  The equation can be applied in similar fashion that I will expand on now.  One common theme seen with many MMORPG’s is the encroaching enemies/monsters on the near by town.  Various quests are given by NPC’s to go and bring forth x amount of heads, parts, foozles, and ect.  The reward is generally x amount of cash or an item.  Both the flow of money and items can be handled by how much activity is handled in the area around the town.  The decided flow and ebb of how one’s characters actions are rewarded can be determined by several factors.  A hit count would be tallied and monetary rewards would be based on this number plus some random factor.  The rewards in question would appear both on the slain as in spotted loot missed by other players, or as in additional meat/hide garnered from the kill.  Next in the reward system is either via skill gain or experience, skill gain would be easily assigned by usage of the skill in question.  XP would be awarded on the hit basis, plus mitigating factors like healing, strikes from stealth, picked pockets, and ect.

Net effect is that everyone who participates, whether the social leader or anti-social hunter can reap the benefits of participating in the (currently) mainly static world’s atmosphere.  Not isolating the player base, but providing greater community at zero cost to the player.

Thoughts?

[Shannow]

Um if people want to cooperate outside of the group setting aren't they effectively grouping? And if they want to cooperate usually they want tools to make that cooperation easier, therefore people group.

To be perfectly honest can you sum up that post in a sentence or two? 'Cause its not making much sense to me personally.

[SirBruce]

Why should groupers get even more benefits?  They already benefit from increased safety from grouping.  It is the solo player, not the grouper, who should get more benefits, because they are taking increased risk to achieve the same goal.

People who want to group for social reasons will group regardless of incentives.  People who want solo play will not be enticed to group because of your incentives; instead, they'll group reluctantly, be very grumpy about it, and eventually quit your game anyway.

Bruce

[Fargull]

Shannov,

Right now everyone is penalized by not grouping.  Either you solo and the developers cater part of the content to solo and part to grouping, or they force locks on the creature so only the first person gets xp or loot.

The solution above kills the ninja loot and lock on xp.  The ability to log in and immediately join the action is available.

If you start to fight something superior, instead of worring about kill stealing, the battle can be joined by anyone.  Everyone would receive xp for the kill, everyone would have a chance at the treasure, no reason would exist not to help.

Does this clarify?

[Fargull]

Bruce,

I am talking about no grouping.  Only aspect of grouping would be the shared chat feature, nothing else.  I currently agree completely that forced grouping kills games, at least for me.

[Shannow]

People like to group, people like to solo. Now you take away most of the benefits to grouping? I think you'll piss off more ppl than you'll please.

And you say a shared expierence system will prevent kill stealing.

How exactly do you plan to balance this out? Either everyone gets the same expierence completely taking out any risk/reward factor to the game or the player who contributes most to the fight gets the most expierence at which point ppl are NOT going to be happy with everyone and their dog walking up and joining the fight.

It would seem this type of play would only encourage solo play making the 'massively multiplayer' element even more farcial than it already is.

People like to play in groups , for ease of adventuring , for social reasons, you take those benefits away so that people can 'share' the atomsphere and all you'll do is piss off a large part of your playerbase.

[Nebu]

Why should groupers get even more benefits?  They already benefit from increased safety from grouping.  It is the solo player, not the grouper, who should get more benefits, because they are taking increased risk to achieve the same goal.

Easy: PROFIT!

Creating a need for groups creates a social context. This social context creates social bonds.  These social bonds increase subscription rates.  People that have social ties in mmog's are likely to remain subscribed longer than those playing solo.  

I believe the group incentives and group benefits largely exist to create social bonds which will increase the duration of subscribers.

I'll see if I can find some of the journal articles written on this, but I'm sure many of you are more well versed than I.  Hell, we see this stuff plastered on TN all the time.

[Rasix]

Easy: PROFIT!

Creating a need for groups creates a social context. This social context creates social bonds.  These social bonds increase subscription rates.  People that have social ties in mmog's are likely to remain subscribed longer than those playing solo.  

I believe the group incentives and group benefits largely exist to create social bonds which will increase the duration of subscribers.

I'll see if I can find some of the journal articles written on this, but I'm sure many of you are more well versed than I.  Hell, we see this stuff plastered on TN all the time.

Just read any of the jibber-jabber put out by Geldon over the year on here or Grimwell's.  He doesn't see that it's just a money grab to get subscription rates up; he sees it as just about issue #1 for all MMORPGs. Must have forced group to build social ties and thus makes the first two MMs more important than the rest of the acronym.  Without some sort of group or die, your game isn't an MMO and it's just pandering to anti-social solo'er types.  That's primarily while he'll slobber all over games like FFXI.  In that game if you don't group past about level 12 you're meat.

Now, I see this as important, but I don't see why it has to come to a detriment to the soloer.  Do companies realize that soloers often take longer to get through the PVE content? Do they realize most soloers have extensive in game social networks also?  I'm not convinced sitting down with 6 random retards to camp the foozle is going to hook me into your game.  No matter how witty their MTV inspired joke is or how entertaining it is to see their pull macro sport Limp Bizkit lyrics, you're not going to keep me subbed for this type of interaction.  

But, I guess as long as games are being made on the virtues of a business model, "group or die" is here to stay.  This is probably one of the few reasons I'm hoping WoW will be a runaway smash success.  It's pulled off the group v. soloer schism in a way that should make everyone happy.  However, it's still tending to piss of the group-or-go-play-Morrowind-you-antisocial-twerp faction by not going far enough.

[Nebu]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not even mildly suggesting that I agree with the group-for-profit model.  I'm merely suggesting a possible reason for its existence.  The bottom line remains: people make mmog's for a profit.  Why else do you think we see so many damn EQ clones not only in existence, but on the horizon?

Personally, anything that allows me to compete solo I'm for.  That way I can avoid most of the idiots running the large powerguilds.  I'm just not optimistic that what we'd like to see will ever be a part of the successful mmog business model.

[WayAbvPar]

Forcing me to group is a fantastic way to avoid getting any subscription fees from me. Not only does it take me more of my precious leisure time searching for a group instead of playing the fucking game, it exposes me to more of the player base. Since a good 90% (and I am being generous here) of the player base are drooling imbecilic fucktards, forcing me to interact with said fucktards insures that I will cancel (if I ever play at all).

[Nebu]

Forcing me to group is a fantastic way to avoid getting any subscription fees from me. Not only does it take me more of my precious leisure time searching for a group instead of playing the fucking game, it exposes me to more of the player base. Since a good 90% (and I am being generous here) of the player base are drooling imbecilic fucktards, forcing me to interact with said fucktards insures that I will cancel (if I ever play at all).

Totally agree.  If the solo community stopped buying games that either a) force grouping (a la EQ)  or b) reward it in a heavy-handed manner, then the model may change.  Yet I still find myself buying games that I know aren't for me... maybe I'm sick.  I still have this sense of optimism that I'm going to find something about the game that I like only to get pissed off after a couple months that I even wasted my time.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but as long as their are profits and investors in the current gaming models we're all pretty much screwed.

[schild]

Forcing me to group is a fantastic way to avoid getting any subscription fees from me. Not only does it take me more of my precious leisure time searching for a group instead of playing the fucking game, it exposes me to more of the player base. Since a good 90% (and I am being generous here) of the player base are drooling imbecilic fucktards, forcing me to interact with said fucktards insures that I will cancel (if I ever play at all).

Guild Wars will force you to group. Oh wait, but it's free.

<3,
NC Soft.

[WayAbvPar]

Forcing me to group is a fantastic way to avoid getting any subscription fees from me. Not only does it take me more of my precious leisure time searching for a group instead of playing the fucking game, it exposes me to more of the player base. Since a good 90% (and I am being generous here) of the player base are drooling imbecilic fucktards, forcing me to interact with said fucktards insures that I will cancel (if I ever play at all).

Guild Wars will force you to group. Oh wait, but it's free.

<3,
NC Soft.

They can't force me to buy it, however =)


I don't know too much about Guild Wars, but it sounds like more PvP related grouping than forced PvE XP pharming. I can see the need for (and tolerate) grouping in PvP. If I MUST group in order to grind through the PvE in order to be ready for PvP, forget it.

[Nebu]

Guild Wars will force you to group. Oh wait, but it's free.

Don't be fooled... no subscription costs != free.  I consider with expansions being released on a regular basis that the game is more like 50% off.  Sure, you don't pay sub fees but you do have to buy the expansions if you want to enjoy all of the current content.  I think this is a solid marketing strategy for hiding costs.  

Don't you worry that the lack of a subscription fee will bring in even more of the fucktards that we try to avoid?  I mean hell, sometimes it's worth $15 a month just to filter out a few idiots.

[Fargull]

Shannow,

Only removing the mechanism that is currently the grouping model.  Experience would be shared, as in proximity to the conflict and determined factors of being in the conflict.  XP is equally spaced.  Overall though, it would be best simulated without xp and use a skill based system.  Besides, the seeming bond of community currently is not the group, but the guild.

Nebu,

I hear you that grouping forces some level of community; however, I still stand that the force is as much if not more of a hinderence to community.  The main positive caviates are the health indicator and chat channel.  I have not heard of another benefit.

Rasix and Way,

You both touch on aspects that inspired me along this little thought path.  Why is grouping enforced?  Is it just because that is an easy determined mechanism for building content, really that is the only bloody thing I can think of that makes sense?

[Shannow]

Um so you disagree with a 'grouping for profit' scheme? So your cool with a MMOLG that is completely solo friendly and goes under in 6 months? wtf?


Ok Id like to see how a completely solo mmolg would do. IMHO I think it would fail.

Mind you Im not against solo play , a game should cater to a wide variety of play styles but go back and read what the original poster wrote. He is suggesting a system that takes away any benefit to grouping and a system that allows anyone to join a fight with xp being divided up amongst all those who join. This I believe takes out ANY sort of risk/reward structure to the game...

[Fargull]

Shannov,

Solo friendly for six months...? City of Heroes ring a bell?

Risk and reward are certainly part of the scheme.  Think of the plane raids from EQ, but instead of being six seperate groups of six or however many people and the zergling rush of those that are just doing it to earn a place in line for the actual loot party of the next x charges, everyone would have a shot.

Group for profit is broken.  The idea is just one of the factors holding back the genisis of the whole mmrpg sphere.

[Shannow]

Does City of Heroes provide any benefits to grouping, any tools to make grouping easier?

I dont think its grouping for profit, I think its making a game that people actually want to play with other people.

So hold on if you zone with 10 other solo players and each person gets a equal chance at the loot are you going to want 10 other ppl in that zone with you or no other people in that zone with you? Or if everyone gets a piece of the pie I think people are going to get bored mighty quick.

Im not advocating forced grouping, but Im also not in favour of forced soloing.

The problems of mmolg games go way beyond 'grouping for profit'

[Fargull]

So hold on if you zone with 10 other solo players and each person gets a equal chance at the loot are you going to want 10 other ppl in that zone with you or no other people in that zone with you? Or if everyone gets a piece of the pie I think people are going to get bored mighty quick.

Not equal chance, but a chance at loot.  So, say the grouip of 10 take down fifteen orcs.  Each person has a 8% or some number decided upon chance of finding loot on each of those 15 orcs.  Everyone has a chance of finding something on all of them.  No limiting.  Where it gets interesting is when the 10 have to take on a task that requires 5 or 6 to handle.  Such risk provides those that participated with a greater chance of finding the foozle, say 40%... Could the solo person handle the creature/thing that requires normally 5 or 6, sure with skill and patience, but does not net more xp nor a greater chance at finding the foozle.

And your right, the issue of forced grouping is not the rosetta stone of mmorpg issues, but it is one piece of the puzzle.

[ajax34i]

I think you're imagining a super-carebear atmosphere, to use a term popular on EVE-Online forums, where every player wants to help everyone by default.  So you're proposing to keep the grouping mechanisms and benefits, but remove the interface, and just make everyone part of the common group.

Some people do want to compete in MMOG's, though; note the proliferation of elitist guilds, or uber guilds.

And from personal experience, the biggest bonus to the group window is the ability to target fast.  Ideally, I would love to have EVERYTHING around me neatly arranged in a sortable list, and not have to rely on clicking on avatars.

[AOFanboi]

The best grouping bar none I've seen in a MMOG is in ToonTown: Groups form on-demand with whomever is around (no invites needed), up to four players. True, there are griefing possibilities (as in running from battle when the others have committed to continue fighting), but no more than in other games. When all the mobs ("cogs" in this case) have been defeated, the group dissolves automatically.

Dunno how that could be implemented in any other game, though. But it would have been nice.

[Fargull]

I think you're imagining a super-carebear atmosphere, to use a term popular on EVE-Online forums, where every player wants to help everyone by default.  So you're proposing to keep the grouping mechanisms and benefits, but remove the interface, and just make everyone part of the common group.

Not at all, I much prefer the PvP atmosphere.  The concept is to break that isolation down and just let anyone that wants to help, well... help.

As for the mechanisms and benefits.. I am talking about removing the exclusiveness of those mechanisms and benefits.  The biggest impact developer wise is it would create a challenge to build content geared toward massive multiplayer instead of 4-8 person group focused challenges.

As to your targeting hotbars, I covered that from the healer angle, which could be applied multiple ways and not just healer specific.

[personman]

Solo friendly for six months...? City of Heroes ring a bell?

Cryptic has been slowly inching up missions so that the game is increasingly unfriendly to solo play.

[Fargull]

Solo friendly for six months...? City of Heroes ring a bell?

Cryptic has been slowly inching up missions so that the game is increasingly unfriendly to solo play.

That is very true, bloody hate the you need x people to stop the bombs from going off at the same time missions...

The whole idea that I am tossing about is not that the need to collectively gather to handle situations, but just removing the exclusiveness of the team.  I just feel the mechanic is a limit, not a benefit.

[Krakrok]

Ok Id like to see how a completely solo mmolg would do. IMHO I think it would fail.

I guess you never played Ultima Online. Worked fine.

---

Note: The main component of the below is the bonding system in place of a group system. The rest is just supporting shiny for the bonding system.

The way I see non-grouping working would be to have the game empire based where you choose a side at the beginning of the game (Rebels, Empire, Albion, etc.). Some kind of guild structure is in place which players can create or at least join for your social bonding. The empires battle each other.

Each "area" or zone is like a FPS map where the two sides war for control of the map/area. When you PVP someone from the other side, be it a player or a bot (ala SW:Battlefront), 100 gold drops to the ground which you or your team can pick up. When the gold is picked up half goes to the person that picked the gold and half goes into a team map pool (Savage works like this).

Another component might be that players near to each other would develope "bonds" that visually connect them (think the repair streams in Tribes: Vengence or it is represented on a minimap as a matrix between players or both). The longer you are near a player or players the stronger the bond grows. The farther you get from a player the weaker  the bond grows. Maybe being in the same guild as another player starts your bond stronger to begin with than if 2 random players just stuck togather. Stronger bonds could maybe enhance the power (hit points, magic, etc.) or give them special combo moves of both players for the time they are near each other. Maybe having 10 people bonded togather at X strength lets you cast an armageddon spell or a teleport or some such. Maybe a strong bond would also give X% of the gold you collect to the bonded player or increase stealth or any number of "upgrade" or "enhancement" type shiny.

There is also a commander (or multiple commanders like Planetside) in an RTS view overlooking the FPS map. The team pool of gold could be used in multiple ways maybe

a) the commanders could build things using gold from the pool
b) players could use team gold to buy temp upgrades or the like if they had no gold of their own
c) at the end of the map the team pool of gold is split evenly between all players (maybe the defeated team only gets a split of half of their team gold).


Full control of each map or or map area might mean a empire or team had control over a mine and therefore were able to produce iron weapons or maybe it means control over a seaport which allows them to produce boats for use or X number of tanks/catapults.

Think of each area/map as a location in a boardgame like Monopoly, Axis & Allies, or Lord of the Rings: Risk.


End transmission.

[chinslim]

The biggest barrier any group faces in today's MMO's is The Class Problem.  For example, it doesn't matter if you have 3 people if it's not the tank healer and mage combo.  

If you can get several interested parties together, why does class(and level) so often have to get in the way?  It's an intentionally stupid barrier that prolongs character advancement merely by preventing players from playing the game.

Now I think there's nothing wrong with individuals playing specific roles for the advancement of the group, but there's no reason to limit a character's abilities to just a specific set when the player behind that character is able to play and use other skills in a group.  Hence, the needless reason for alts.